| Literature DB >> 24639811 |
Rehana Rehman1, Zahir Hussain2, Syeda Sadia Fatima3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in number of obese infertile females booked for advanced infertility treatment procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The knowledge of impact of body mass index (BMI) on reproductive outcome can help to counsel these patients.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index; Controlled ovarian stimulation; Embryo transfer.; Gonadotrophin -releasing hormone agonists; Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Year: 2013 PMID: 24639811 PMCID: PMC3941325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Reprod Med ISSN: 1680-6433
Comparison of reproductive outcome of ICSI in female groups with varying weight status
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Not pregnant | 7 (33%) | 30(38%) | 15 (27%) | 68 (54%) | 0.666 | 0.571 | 0.086 | 0.158 | 0.036 | 0.001 |
| Preclinical abortion | 4 (19%) | 19(24%) | 15 (27%) | 23 (18%) | 0.609 | 0.483 | 0.918 | 0.750 | 0.282 | 0.182 |
| Clinical pregnancies | 10(48%) | 29(37%) | 26 (46%) | 36 (28%) | 0.385 | 0.926 | 0.077 | 0.283 | 0.187 | 0.017 |
Correlation of BMI with rates of reproductive outcome
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Fertilization rate | 0.121 | 0.601 | 0.090 | 0.431 | 0.259 | 0.054 | -0.013 | 0.88 |
| Implantation rate | -0.394 | 0.077 | -0.122 | 0.286 | 0.072 | 0.599 | -0.147 | 0.09 |
| Oocyte retrieval rate | -0.155 | 0.502 | -0.122 | 0.286 | -0.034 | 0.806 | -0.050 | 0.57 |
| Cleavage rate | -0.127 | 0.583 | -0.109 | 0.344 | 0.266 | 0.048 | 0.006 | 0.94 |
| Oocyte maturity rate | -0.081 | 0.727 | 0.122 | 0.289 | 0.220 | 0.104 | 0.094 | 0.29 |
Correlation applied by Pearson correlation coefficient.
Base-line clinical and physiological characteristics according to body mass index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 21 | 78 | 56 | 127 | |
| Female age (years) | 33.095 ± 1.11 | 32.167 ± 0.52 | 32.161 ± 0.666 | 31.89 ± 0.4 | 0.74 |
| Age at marriage (years) | 25.81 ± 1.453 | 24.949 ± 0.508 | 24.214 ± 0.57 | 25.248 ± 0.372 | 0.42 |
| Age of menarche (years) | 13.857 ± 0.261 | 14.038 ± 0.141 | 13.964 ± 0.157 | 14.134 ± 0.1 | 0.67 |
| Duration of infertility | 7.286 ± 0.799 | 7.218 ± 0.418 | 7.946 ± 0.634 | 6.642 ± 0.315 | 0.20 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 122.048 ± 0.965 | 121.205 ± 0.492 | 121 ± 0.727 | 119.819 ± 0.464 | 0.09 |
| Diastolic blood pressure(mm Hg) | 73.857 ± 0.591 | 75.333 ± 0.403 | 75.089 ± 0.538 | 76.701 ± 0.367 | 0.001* |
Values are represented as Mean±SD.
Differences among groups were assessed by using analysis of variance. Significance level at <0.05.
Response to ovarian stimulation and embryological data according to body mass index (BMI)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 21 | 78 | 56 | 127 | |
| Total number of puregons | 54.821± 0.704 | 57.323 ± 0.914 | 55.905 ± 1 | 58.102± 0.966 | 0.28 |
| No of puregons in one day | 3.964 ± 0.087 | 4.05 ± 0.078 | 3.936 ± 0.074 | 4.014 ± 0.066 | 0.79 |
| Follicle at ultrasound | 20.667 ± 1.522 | 18.859 ± 1.05 | 21.679 ± 1.165 | 19.339 ± 0.76 | 0.25 |
| Endo. lining | 9.524 ± 0.94 | 8.167 ± 0.393 | 8.732 ± 0.44 | 8.646 ± 0.29 | 0.40 |
| No of oocytes/patient | 20.286± 1.543 | 18.449 ± 1.048 | 21.25 ± 1.147 | 18.921± 0.767 | 0.25 |
| Oocyte retrieval rate (%) | 98 | 97 | 98 | 97 | 0.72 |
| No of Metaphase II oocytes | 16.81 ± 1.656 | 14.833 ± 1.038 | 17.393 ± 1.169 | 14.961 ± 0.701 | 0.22 |
| No of 2PN oocytes | 16 ± 1.551 | 14.346 ± 1.005 | 17.036 ± 1.155 | 14.504 ± 0.7 | 0.20 |
| Fertilization rate (%) | 77 | 76 | 79 | 76 | 0.81 |
| No of cleaved embryos | 10.762 ± 1.327 | 10.167 ± 0.857 | 12.339 ± 0.941 | 10 ± 0.604 | 0.20 |
| Cleavage rate (%) | 51 | 52 | 57 | 52 | 0.58 |
| No of transferred blastocysts | 1.571 ± 0.111 | 1.654 ± 0.065 | 1.696 ± 0.076 | 1.591 ± 0.054 | 0.65 |
| Number of gestational sacs | 0.619 ± 0.161 | 0.447 ± 0.08 | 0.636 ± 0.111 | 0.37 ± 0.058 | 0.09 |
| Implantation rate (%) | 43 | 26 | 34 | 23 | 0.14 |
Values are represented as Mean±SD.
Differences among groups were assessed by using analysis of variance. Significance level at <0.05.